you're saying the exact same thing I am saying...I said from the get go that Underworld was not an Oscar winning type movie and it was never intended to be, it is aimed at its fan base...it is a given the critics would rate it low.

No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.

But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.

In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.

Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?

I use my own intuition when it comes to movies. I'll look to see who the director is, the cast and what it's about. Generally, I find "expert critics" to be too biased, too stuffy and a bit out of touch. If I want a general view of the movie, then I'll check IMDB and RT, but I prefer to not look at any reviews/ratings before I watch a movie.

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

Fukk you man, I'm here to have fun and to argue and waste some time, not sit here and do arithmetics.

No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.

But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.

In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.

Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?

That is what the critics look at.

just about every movie ever made could be improved upon...

look, all I was trying to point out is that the audience score more reflects the people looking forward to whatever the subject matter of the movie is, where as the critic score reflects someone's opinion that doesn't necessarily give a rat's ass about the subject of the movie, that's all...

it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

Yeah, this is what I was saying about people getting confused by the % and misunderstanding what it means.

The average critic rating for Drive was 8.2/10 while the average fan review was 7.8/10.

When I go to see something like Spiderman, I expect a popcorn flick that stays close to the scourse material not shawshank redemption or 8 1/2. Which are the types that rank in the high 90's.

I like more mainstream movies that happen to float around 90%. I agree that the upper 90% movies typically seem to be snobbish movies about emotions, which are solid films, but not usually very entertaining.

it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.

Who would do a better job of giving a proper analysis of Twilight, teen girls or movie critics? Teen girls would be much more likely to enjoy the film, but they won't give you a review with much substance. If you're going by the quality of a film, then which side do you trust? We're talking quality here, not how much teenyboppers will enjoy a movie, so why would the misguided opinion of teenyboppers mean more than critics? Which side can do a better job of assessing the quality of a movie is what's important.

I mostly use it as a guide. It does interest me a lot to see the percentages many movies get, but if I've already decided to see a movie that I'm looking forward to, I'm going to see it regardless. If I see a movie is being critically acclaimed by many, it would interest me to see it, but a low RT score could never discourage me to see a film.

Like J. Edgar for example, which I think only got about a 50%. I had that movie pegged months before, and although I had high expectations for it, the average reviews it got didn't discourage me in the least. If I want to see a film, I'm going to see it, and make my own judgement there. I thought J. Edgar was ok.

But something like Cabin in the Woods, which I hardly even knew existed, but got great reviews, did interest me to go see it, due to my curiosity and my love for the genre. Cabin in the Woods turned out to be amazing.

So I simply use Rotten Tomatoes as a guide to check up on movies that aren't exactly on my radar. I would never let it influence my decision to see a movie in which I've already made a decision to go see. RT ain't God. Sometimes I do think they are way off, and I swear sometimes the reviews on there take some movies way too seriously. Max Payne got a ****ing 16%, but God damn, what the **** were they expecting going into that movie? Its a ****ing video game PG-13 movie where Whalberg's family gets killed, and he gets revenge by shooting up the city with bad ass bullet special effects. That's pretty much what we got. What the hell else did they want? The ****ing Departed?

To me, Metacritic is much better. Every critic's review is given a number rating from 1 to 100. Instead of just a red or green tomatoe. This way you know HOW good a movie is....not just yes or no.

Metacritic for the win.

Metacritic is the mother of all these rating websites, I don't understand why people would use other databases for ratings. On the other hand they suck at providing info about stuff they rate. I use IMDB for info mostly and Meta for ratings but at the end of the day I choose what I watch.

rotten tomatoes suck, ive watched 3 movies that were highly rated on there site and was very shit and boring, i even thought perhaps that if the tomatoe meter was high the shittier the movie would be which would explain why the movies were shit.

i like IMBD. they can give you a reference of other movies similar to one you have watched and enjoyed.